Canon XC10 "lens slides out" when used on drone

[Andrew Reid]

Numerous times Canon have touted the XC10 as a perfect drone camera.

Let's see if they are right.

Read the full article

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

I encourage people to click on the source article, Scott's.  

1-It was a pre-production model, a prototype, not a complete finished product, so lens traction from gravity can be exclusive to the prototype/abused model rather than the tweaked, new final product in a couple of months. 

2-AF works ''flawlessly on land'' but not in air (my comment, of course you don't need AF in the air on a drone, it's for gimbals like MOVI's, steadicams, glidecams, or when flying a drone on a specifically very low height next to close subjects, i.e, both occasions are ''on land'' where it ''works flawlessly'')

3-He compliments the 4K image quality and C-log and high DR, 

4-He compliments the lens saying a proper 4K lens and not to be confused as a kit lens. 

These are his positive points. His negatives are: 

1-The lens needed tape to be fixed at 24mm, but it's a prototype. 

2-AF doesnt work very well in air, where you need it set manually to infinity anyway 

Come on, it just seems you're specifically hunting every single tiny bit of negativity about the new Canon on the web while specifically avoiding any positive aspect, which is very dangerous for an influencing website like this, people make decisions based on your words, they deserve to see both sides, where the negatives and positives are, not just one, even only addressing the positives like some recent articles on the XC10 is dangerous as well!

[The Chris]

A 10-cent rubber bracelet or a fat rubber band (free in many cases) will cure any lens creep. I know is fashionable to bash Canon on this site, but I don't get why people have so much hatred toward this camera, nobody's forcing you to use it. Its all about the image - and if it looks great people will buy it - Canon gets the last laugh. Looking forward to seeing one in person and tinkering with it once Best Buy has it in stock.

[Andrew Reid]

You're both missing the point big time.

It's $2500 and they couldn't put a lock switch on the zoom.

[johnnymossville]

how heavy is this camera?   I've seen pictures of it in people's hands and it looks large. 

[fuzzynormal]

This camera, I don't like it.  But I don't mind Canon selling it.  Seems like some are mildly insulted it even exists. 

I believe this model is a Canon strategy to fill a market gap that we'd rather their EOS line handle.  If you view their strategy as cynical, frustrating, smart, or understandable that's up to you.

My impression is that they're crazy like a fox.  While none of their recent moves make much sense to our niche market it will ultimately better serve their position in the future landscape.  I also suspect that they don't care too much about a few individual consumer/enthusiast level bloggers poo-poo'ing the camera.  The prosumer buyer has a different standard that's somewhat immune to internet ramblings.  They buy for specific needs that don't necessarily involve making the most cinematic image on the cheapest camera body --for better or worse depending on your POV.

Make no mistake.  We're a niche market.  (I also believe we're an undervalued niche market; not because of sales, but perceptive prestige among mass market consumers -- a theory for a different thread)

Ultimately, consumer enthusiast cameras sales are trending down as more and more people get by making stills with their other devices.  They have to shift to adapt to that reality and this is the way they're gonna try and handle it to stay profitable:  targeted product development.  They obviously don't like the EOS/Cinema cross over and are segregating those markets.

And as much as that strategy bugs us, I suspect it's going to work for them.

If Canon's offerings bother you, look elsewhere.  There's still plenty of nice options.  Just because they made the 5DII doesn't mean you have to keep buying from the company that sold it.  Brand loyalty is sort of ridiculous in our particular arena at this point in time. 

Bottom line:  They're a business making a business decision.  If you want a camera company that shares your cinema passion and wants to offer you cheap solutions to do so, you gotta think about looking elsewhere.

And, really, there's a lot out there.  It's an embarrassment of riches, really.  The market is saturated with options.

[MattH]

how heavy is this camera?   I've seen pictures of it in people's hands and it looks large. 

​Its 1040 grams.  Not quite as light as they would like to make out. The RX10 is 813g and manages a constant 2.8 lens.  There are many things I like about the XC10. 1040g all-in is good for a 10 bit 4k log image with viewfinder, IS and autofocus.  But the lens puts too much of a dampener on it for me.  f5.6 is just too dim for indoor use.

[Tzedekh]

1040g all-in is good for a 10 bit 4k log image with viewfinder, IS and autofocus. 

​I believe it's 8-bit.

[AaronChicago]

At least Canon offers alternatives. I'm still mad at Panasonic for not releasing a kick ass AF200. (yet)

[Jimmy]

 it's actually becoming a witch hunt on here... it is a PROTOTYPE

This would not be turned into an article if it weren't a canon camera. It's pathetic

[Andrew Reid]

Jimmy the fan boy speaks again.

It's not a prototype, it's a pre-production. Tiny little tweaks for mass production and it's done. If the non-prototype has a lock on the lens and doesn't need taping up for your drone, give us a call!

[Nurman Viztosky]

Andrew, we get it: you think the XC10 is a disaster. WE GET IT ! Now, let it go, dude. All camera companies have released shitty products without ever admitting it. Just leave it and keep writing about the good stuff.

[Andrew Reid]

At least Canon offers alternatives. I'm still mad at Panasonic for not releasing a kick ass AF200. (yet)

​Offers an alternative.........................

For $8000 or $15,000!

[Jimmy]

Fan boy? I don't currently own any Canon gear.
I just find the Canon witch hunt very counter productive to what is often a decent blog.

[MattH]

​I believe it's 8-bit.

​Oh yeah, I must have miss remembered.  422 is what I should have said.  That puts another dampener on it then.

[Andrew Reid]

Fan boy? I don't currently own any Canon gear.
I just find the Canon witch hunt very counter productive to what is often a decent blog.

​So does the zoom not flop out or does it?!

You can't keep the truth from these pages as easily as you can some of the other bum licking parts of the internet

[Tzedekh]

​You can't keep the truth from these pages as easily as you can some of the other bum licking parts of the internet

​Colorful.  ;^)

[AaronChicago]

​Offers an alternative.........................

For $8000 or $15,000!

​Yeah. That's where I wish Panasonic would offer up a selection.

[Oliver Daniel]

I couldn't give a rat's bum about this camera. There are a plenty of other options on the market. It's much more interesting talking about those. 

[wolf33d]

There is no debate here. 

Who the hell would buy this camera for drone, when they can have a BM micro cinema camera, perfect for the job (lighter, RAW, lens flexibility, 2 times cheaper even with lens) ???

This camera is not for drone use. This camera is a April fool by Canon that came a few days too late. 
Can't wait to see the 5D4, and / or 5DC to see if Canon is officially becoming a pure shit player and going to death (not speaking about video only, but sorry even for stills a D810 is 100x better than 5D3, just to mention the 2004 like dynamic range) or if they are back in the game (5D4 with 4K, or 5DC with exact same video quality & 4k as 1DC for 3500USD, which is possible if you look at the 5DIII/1DX image quality and price difference).